Site Navigation

Social Organization

Chapter 27: Hostile Feeling between Classes

Charles Horton Cooley

CONDITIONS PRODUCING CLASS ANIMOSITY -- THE SPIRIT OF SERVICE ALLAYS
BITTERNESS -- POSSIBLE DECREASE OF THE PRESTIGE OF WEALTH -- PROBABILITY OF A MORE
COMMUNAL SPIRIT IN THE USE OF WEALTH -- INFLUENCE OF SETTLED RULES FOR SOCIAL OPPOSITION
-- IMPORTANCE OF FACE-TO-FACE DISCUSSION

CLASS animosity by no means increases in proportion to the separation of classes. On
the contrary, where there is a definite and recognized class system which no one thinks of
breaking down, a main cause of arrogance and jealousy is absent. Every one takes his
position for granted and is not concerned to assert or improve it. In Spain, it is said,
"you may give the inch to any peasant; he is sure to be a gentleman, and he never
thinks of taking the elf." So in an English tale, written about 1875, I find the
following: "The peasantry and little people in country places like to feel the gentry
far above them. They do not care to be caught up into the empyrean of an equal humanity,
but enjoy the poetry of their self-abasement in the belief that their superiors are indeed
their betters." So at the South there was a kind of fellowship between the races
under slavery which present conditions make more difficult. A settled inequality is the
next best thing, for intercourse, to equality.

But where the ideal of equality has entered, even slight differences may be resented,
and class feeling is most bitter, probably, where this ideal is strong but has no regu-

(302)-lar and hopeful methods of asserting itself. In that case aspiration turns sour
and generates hateful passions. Caste countries are safe from this by lacking the ideal of
equality, democracies by partly realizing it. But in Germany, for instance, where there is
a fierce democratic propaganda on the one hand, and a stone wall of military and
aristocratic institutions on the other, one may feel a class bitterness that we hardly
know in America. And in England also, at the present time, when classes are still
recognized but very ill-defined, there seems to be much of an uneasy preoccupation about
rank, and of the elbowing, snubbing and suspicion that go with it. People appear to be
more concerned with trying to get into a set above them, or repressing others who are
pushing up from below, than with us. In America social position exists, but, having no
such definite symbols as in England, is for the most part too intangible to give rise to
snobbery, which is based on titles and other externalities which men may covet or gloat
over in a way hardly possible when the line is merely one of opinion, congeniality and
character.

Th feeling between classes will pot be very bitter so long as the ideal of service is
present in all and mutually recognized. And it is the tendency of the democratic
spirit—very imperfectly worked out as yet—to raise this ideal above all others
and make it a common standard of conduct. Thus Montesquieu, describing an ideal democracy,
says that ambition is limited " to the sole desire, to the sole happiness, of doing
greater services to our country than the rest of our fellow citizens. They cannot all
render her equal services, but they all ought to serve her

(303) with equal alacrity." He thinks also that the love of frugality, by which he
means compunction in material self-indulgence, "limits the desire of having to the
study of procuring necessities to our family and superfluities to our country."[1]
If it were indeed so ill our own world, there would be no danger of a class conflict.

Possibly all states of opinion by which any service is despised are survivals from a
caste society, and reminiscent of the domination of one order over another—just as
slavery has left a feeling in the South that hand labor is degrading. So soon as all kinds
of workers share freely in the social and political order, all work must be respected. The
social prestige of idleness, of "conspicuous leisure," that still exists in the
Old World, is evidently a survival of this sort, and it can hardly happen in the
democratic future that "people will let their nails grow that all may see they do not
work." "I do not call one greater and one smaller," says Whitman,
"that which fills its period and place is equal to any."[2] I
think, however, that there will always be especial esteem for some sorts of achievement,
but the grounds for this will, more and more, be distinction in the common service.

The excessive prestige of wealth, along with much of the ill feeling which it involves,
is also, in my opinion, rather a legacy from caste society than a trait congenial to
democracy. I have tried to show that the ascendancy of riches is really greater in the
older and less democratic societies; and it survives in democracy as much as it

(304) does partly because of the tradition that associates wealth with an upper caste,
and partly because other ideals are as yet crude and unorganized. A real democracy of
sentiment and action, a renewed Christianity and a renewed art might make life beautiful
and hopeful for those who have little money without diminishing the wholesome operation of
the desire for gain. At present the common man is impoverished not merely by an absolute
want of money but by a current way of thinking which makes pecuniary success the standard
of merit, and so makes him feel that failure to get money is failure of life. As we no
longer feel much admiration for mere physical prowess, apart from the use that is made of
it, so it seems natural that the same should come true of mere pecuniary strength. The
mind of a child, or of any naive person, bases consideration chiefly on function, on what
a man can do in the common life, and it is in the line of democratic development that we
should return toward this simple and human view.

It is in accord with this movement that children of all classes are more and more
taught the use of tools, cooking and other primary arts of life. This not only makes for
economy and independence, but educates the " instinct of workmanship," leading
us to feel an interest in all good work and a respect for those who do it.

The main need of men is life, self-expression, not luxury, and if self-expression can
be made general material inequalities alone will excite but little resentment.

As to the use of wealth we may expect a growing sense of social responsibility, of
which there are already cheerful

(305) indications. Since it is no longer respectable to be idle, why may we not hope
that it will presently cease to be respectable to indulge one's lower self in other
ways—in pecuniary greed, in luxurious eating, in display, rich clothes and other
costly and exclusive pleasures ?

We must not, however, be so optimistic as to overlook the ease with which narrow or
selfish interests may form special groups of their own, encouraging one another in greed
or luxury to the neglect of the common life. Such associations cannot altogether shut out
general sentiment, but they can and do so far deaden its influence that the more hardened
or frivolous are practically unconscious of it. While there are some cheerful givers on a
large scale among us, and many on a small one, I am not sure that there was ever, on the
whole, a commercial society that contributed a smaller part of its gains to general
causes. We have done much in this way; but then we are enormously rich; and the most that
has been done has been by taxation, which falls most heavily upon small property-owners.
The more communal use of wealth is rather a matter of general probability, and of faith in
democratic l sentiment, than of demonstrable fact.

Much might be said of the various ways in which more community sentiment might be shown
and class resentment alleviated. In the matter of dress, for example; shall one express
his community consciousness in it or his class consciousness, assuming that each is
natural and creditable? It would seem that when he goes abroad among men the good democrat
should prefer to appear a plain citizen, with nothing about him to interrupt intercourse
with any class. And in fact, it is a wholesome

(306) feature of American life, in notable contrast with, say, Germany, that high as
well as low are averse to wearing military or other distinctive costume in
public—except at times of festival or display, when class consciousness is in special
function. We feel that if a man wants to distinguish himself in general intercourse he
should do so in courtesy or wisdom, not in medals or clothes.

And why should not the same principle, of deference to the community in non-essentials,
apply to one's house and to one's way of living in general? If he has anything worthy to
express in these things, let him express it, but not pride or luxury.

Let us not, however, formulize upon the question what one may rightly spend money for,
or imagine that formulism is practicable. The principle that wealth is a trust held for
the general good is not to be disputed; but latitude must be left to individual
conceptions of what the general good is. These are matters not for formulas or sumptuary
laws, but for conscience. To set up any other standard would be to suppress individuality
and do more harm than good.

Some of us would be glad to see almost any amount of wealth spent upon beautiful
architecture, though we might prefer that the buildings be devoted to some public use. Let
us have beauty, even luxury, but let it be public and communicable. It certainly seems at
first sight that vast expenditure upon private yachts, private cars, costly balls, display
of jewelry, sumptuous eating and the like, indicates a low state of culture; but perhaps
this is a mistake; no doubt there is some beneficence in these things not generally
understood.

(307)

We do not want uniformity in earning and spending, more than elsewhere, only unity of
spirit. Some writers praise the emulation that is determined to have as fine things as
others have, but while this has its uses it is a social impulse of no high kind
and keeps
the mass of men feeling poor and inferior. Our dignity and happiness would profit more if
each of us were to work out life in a way of his own without invidious comparisons. We
shall never be content except as we develop and enjoy our individuality and are willing to
forego what does not belong to it. I know that I was not born to get or to use riches, but
I am willing to believe that others are.

An essential condition of better feeling in the inevitable struggles of life is that
there should be just and accepted "rules of the game" to give moral unity to the
whole Much must be suffered, but men will suffer without bitter ness if they believe that
they do so under just and necessary principles.

A solid foundation has been laid for this, in free countries, by the establishment of
institutions under which all class conflicts are referred, in the last resort, to human
nature itself. Through free speech a general will may be organized on any matter urgent
enough to attract general attention, and through democratic government this may be tested,
recorded and carried out. Thus is provided a tribunal free from class bias before which
controversies may be tried and settled in an orderly manner.

It would be hard to exaggerate the importance to social peace of this recognition of
the ultimate authority of public opinion, acting slowly but surely through constitutional

(308) methods. It means a moral whole which prescribes rules, directs sane agitation
into healthy and moderate channels, and takes away all rational ground for violence or
revolution If men, for instance, believe that a particular kind of socialistic state is
the cure for the evils of society, let them speak, print and form their party. Perhaps
they are right; at least, they get much wholesome self-expression and a kind of happiness
out of their aspiration and labors. And if they are partly wrong, yet they may both learn
and impart much to the general advantage.

But we have made only a beginning in this. Our ethics is only a vague outline, not a
matured system, and in the details of social contact—as between employer and workman,
rich and poor, Negro and white, and so on—there is such a lack of accepted standards
that men have little to go by but their crude impulses. All this must be worked out, in as
much patience and good will as possible, before we can expect to have peace.

Where there is no very radical conflict of essential principles, ill feeling may
commonly be alleviated by face-to-face discussion, since the more we come to understand
one another the more we get below superficial unlikeness and find essential community.
Between fairly reasonable and honest men it is always wholesome to "have it
out," and many careful studies of labor troubles agree regarding the large part
played by misunderstandings and suspicion that have no cause except lack of opportunity
for explanation. "The rioting would not have taken place," says a student of
certain mining disorders, "had not the ignorance and suspicion of the Hungarians
been supplemented by the

(309) ignorance and suspicion of the employers; and the perseverance of this mutual
attitude may yet create another riot."[3] There is a strong
temptation for those in authority, especially if they are overworked or conscious of being
a little weak or unready in conference, to fence themselves in with formality and the
type-written letter. But a man of real fitness in any administrative capacity must have a
stomach for open and face-to-face dealing with men.

And a democratic system sooner or later brings to pass face-to-face discussion of all
vital questions, because the people will be satisfied with no other. An appearance of
shirking it will arouse even more distrust and hostility than the open avowal of selfish
motives; and accordingly it is more and more the practice of aggressive interests to seek
to justify themselves by at least the appearance of frank appeal to popular judgment.

Notes

The original published version of this document is in the public domain. The Mead Project exercises no copyrights over the original text.

This page and related Mead Project pages constitute the personal web-site
of Dr. Lloyd Gordon Ward (retired), who is responsible for its content.
Although the Mead Project continues to be presented through the
generosity of Brock University, the contents of this page do not reflect
the opinion of Brock University. Brock University is not responsible for
its content.

Fair Use Statement:

Scholars are permitted to reproduce this material for personal use.
Instructors are permitted to reproduce this material for educational use by
their students.

Otherwise, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, for the purpose of profit or personal benefit, without written permission from the Mead Project. Permission is granted for inclusion of the electronic text of these pages, and their related images in any index that provides free access to its listed documents.